29 C.F.R. § 1630.2

Section 1630.2(o)(3) requires an employer to engage in an interactive process to determine an appropriate accommodation after an employee establishes a disability requiring accommodation.

Murphy v. County of New Hanover · filed 2021-10-08(o)(3)

After an employee establishes he has a “disability” requiring accommodation, an employer has a duty to engage in an “interactive process” to determine an appropriate accommodation. See 29 C.F.R. § 1630.2(o)(3).

The regulation calls for an informal, good-faith interactive process to identify disability-related limitations and possible reasonable accommodations.

Ellis v. North Andover Public Schools · filed 2021-10-29(o)(3)

To determine the appropriate reasonable accommodation it may be necessary for the covered entity to initiate an informal, interactive process with the qualified individual with a disability in need of the accommodation. This process should identify the precise limitations resulting from the disability and potential reasonable accommodations that could overcome those limitations. 29 C.F.R. § 1630.2(o)(3). Thus, an employee’s request for accommodation may create “a duty on the part of the employer to engage in an interactive process.” E.E.O.C. v. Kohl's Dep't Stores, Inc., 774 F.3d 127, 132 (1st Cir. 2014) (quoting Enica v. Principi, 544 F.3d 328, 338 (1st Cir. 2008)). Both the employer and the employee have an obligation to engage in this process in good faith. See id. ... McQuade initiated and pursued communication with Ellis and it was plaintiff’s own circumstances, not defendant’s delay, that ultimately interrupted progress. ... A factfinder could not reasonably conclude that the defendant failed to make a reasonable effort to respond to Ellis’ disability during the short period under consideration.

Section 1630.2(o)(3) describes the interactive process as a means to identify disability-related limitations and potential reasonable accommodations to overcome them.

Adams v. Stealthbits Technologies Inc · filed 2022-01-03(o)(3)

The interactive process is used to identify the limitations resulting from a disability and potential reasonable accommodations that could overcome those limitations.

The interactive process should identify an employee's specific disability-related limitations and possible reasonable accommodations.

Krow v. Pinebridge Investments Holdings U.S. LLC · filed 2022-03-21(o)(3)

“This process should identify the precise limitations resulting from the disability and potential reasonable accommodations that could overcome those limitations.”

Section 1630.2(o)(3) requires an individualized interactive process to identify an employee’s disability-related limitations and potential reasonable accommodations.

Suboh v. Abacus Corporation · filed 2022-10-18(o)(3)

“Once an employee requests an accommodation, the employer has a duty to engage in an interactive process” through which the parties “‘identify the precise limitations resulting from the disability and potential reasonable accommodations that could overcome those limitations.’” Hostettler, 895 F.3d at 857 (quoting Mosby-Meachem v. Memphis Light, Gas & Water Div., 883 F.3d 595, 605–06 (6th Cir. 2018)). See also 29 C.F.R. § 1630.2(o)(3). The interactive process requires an employer to engage in “an individualized inquiry to determine whether a reasonable accommodation can be made.” Hostettler, 895 F.3d at 857 (internal quotation and citation omitted).

The regulation contemplates that an employer may need to initiate an informal, interactive process with a qualified individual with a disability to develop a reasonable accommodation.

Narayanan v. Midwestern State University · filed 2022-10-24(o)(3)

“[T]he ADA’s regulations state that “it may be necessary for the [employer] to initiate an informal, interactive process with the qualified individual with a disability in need of the accommodation” in order to craft a reasonable accommodation.” Loulseged v. Akzo Nobel Inc., 178 F.3d 731, 735 (5th Cir. 1999) (quoting 29 C.F.R. § 1630.2(o)(3)). ... Therefore, Defendant followed the ADA recommendations for an interactive process, and the ultimate failure of that process does not amount to a failure-to-accommodate on the part of Defendant.

Section 1630.2(o) contemplates an informal interactive process in which the covered entity and individual identify the disability’s precise limitations and potential reasonable accommodations.

Kumagah v. Aldersgate United Methodist Retirement Community, Inc. · filed 2022-12-27(o)

The Act provides that to “determine the appropriate reasonable accommodation it may be necessary for the covered entity to initiate an informal, interactive process with the individual with a disability in need of the accommodation. This process should identify the precise limitations resulting from the disability and potential reasonable accommodations that could overcome those limitations.” 29 C.F.R. § 1630.2(o). ... To the contrary, Defendant produced ample evidence of its intent to participate in this informal interactive process: the parties were in communication concerning Plaintiff’s request from May 5 through June 12, and between May 8–22, the parties met twice, wherein Defendant requested additional information from Plaintiff’s doctor regarding her specific conditions and the job-specific responsibilities she would and would not be able to perform so as to be able to provide her with reasonable accommodations. ... As such, Plaintiff has failed to produce evidence demonstrating Defendant refused to participate in good faith in an interactive process. Rather, Plaintiff herself failed to participate in good faith in that she refused to identify the precise limitations caused by her alleged disability, and the accommodation she requested was in and of itself not reasonable.

Section 1630.2(o)(3) requires the interactive process to identify the precise limitations resulting from a disability and potential reasonable accommodations that could overcome those limitations.

Benavides v. Texas Department of Family and Protective Services · filed 2022-12-29(o)(3)

The interactive process should “identify the precise limitations resulting from the disability and potential reasonable accommodations that could overcome those limitations.” 29 C.F.R. § 1630.2(o)(3). By alleging that Defendant only offered to compete with other positions, Plaintiff has plausibly alleged a failure to engage in the interactive process, such as identifying the precise limitations of the disability, as defined by federal regulations.

Section 1630.2 recognizes that determining an appropriate accommodation may require an employer to initiate an informal interactive process to identify disability-related limitations and potential reasonable accommodations.

Curt Tomlinson v. Krauss-Maffei Corp. · filed 2023-02-06

Rather, the regulations acknowledge that determining the appropriate accommodation may require the employer “to initiate an informal, interactive process.” 29 C.F.R. § 1630.2. This process functions to “identify the precise limitations resulting from the disability and potential reasonable accommodations that could overcome those limitations.” Id.

Section (o)(3) contemplates that the employer may need to initiate an informal interactive process to identify the employee’s disability-related limitations and potential reasonable accommodations; the court found evidence that the employer failed to participate in that process.

Thomas v. Wayne County Community College District · filed 2023-03-31(o)(3)

To determine the appropriate reasonable accommodation, it may be necessary for the [employer] to initiate an informal, interactive process with the individual with a disability in need of the accommodation. This process should identify the precise limitations resulting from the disability and potential reasonable accommodations that could overcome those limitations. ... The Court concludes that there is evidence that Plaintiff participated – or tried to participate -- in the interactive process, and there is evidence that Defendant failed to do so.

Section 1630.2(o)(3) requires an employer to engage in communication and good-faith exploration of possible accommodations when an employee makes a reasonable accommodation request.

Dove v. Ohio Dept. of Rehab. & Corr. · filed 2023-04-17(o)(3)

If a disabled employee makes a reasonable accommodation request, the employer is obligated to engage in the “interactive process,” which requires “communication and good-faith exploration of possible accommodations.” 29 C.F.R. § 1630.2(o)(3); Kleiber, 485 F.3d at 871.

Section 1630.2(o)(3) describes the interactive accommodation process as a way to identify the employee’s disability-related limitations and potential reasonable accommodations.

Moore v. Walloon Lake Recovery Lodge, LLC · filed 2023-09-11(o)(3)

The purpose of this process is to “identify the precise limitations resulting from the disability and potential reasonable accommodations that could overcome those limitations.” Kleiber, 485 F.3d at 871 (quoting 29 C.F.R. § 1630.2(o)(3)).

Subsection (o)(3) requires an interactive process to determine an appropriate accommodation, not to identify a disability or formulate the basis for an accommodation.

Bube, Christine v. Aspirus Hospital, Inc. · filed 2023-09-15(o)(3)

Regulations interpreting the ADA require employees to “engage with the employee in an interactive process to determine the appropriate accommodation under the circumstances.” ... Even if the ADA requirement applied in the context of Title VII, it would not require Aspirus to help plaintiffs craft a religious objection. In the ADA context, the requirement applies to “determin[ing] the appropriate accommodation,” Stern, 788 F.3d at 292 not to identifying a disability that requires an accommodation. So it follows that Aspirus had no duty to help plaintiffs identify what their religious beliefs are.

Section 1630.2(o)(3) provides that determining a reasonable accommodation may require an informal interactive process to identify the employee’s precise limitations and potential accommodations addressing them.

Maloney v. Blinken · filed 2023-09-28(o)(3)

As the EEOC explains in its regulations, “[t]o determine the appropriate reasonable accommodation[,] it may be necessary for the [employer] to initiate an informal, interactive process with the qualified individual with a disability in need of the accommodation. This process should identify the precise limitations resulting from the disability and potential reasonable accommodations that could overcome those limitations.” 29 C.F.R. § 1630.2(o)(3) (EEOC regulation); see Doak, 798 F.3d at 1099.

Section 1630.2(o)(3) contemplates an informal, interactive process about an appropriate accommodation when necessary, but does not require additional interaction after the employer has reviewed and evaluated the employee’s request and no further discussion could make a difference.

Hannah v. UPS · filed 2023-07-10(o)(3)

Finally, Hannah contends that UPS did not, as required by the ADA, “engage in an interactive[] communication with [him] to determine if a reasonable accommodation existed” or that there was, at least, a factual dispute as to whether it did. See 29 C.F.R. § 1630.2(o)(3) (stating that in determining an appropriate accommodation, “it may be necessary for the [employer] to initiate an informal, interactive process with the [employee]”). ... Hannah has not proffered what additional interaction he believes was required or what additional discussions he and UPS representatives could have had with each other ... that could have made a difference. We conclude that nothing more was required. Accordingly, we reject this argument.

Section 1630.2(o)(3) calls for an interactive process to identify an employee’s precise disability-related limitations and potential reasonable accommodations.

Smith v. Shelby Cnty. Bd. of Educ. · filed 2024-08-01(o)(3)

The purpose of the interactive process is to “identify the precise limitations resulting from [the employee’s] disability” and any “potential reasonable accommodations that could overcome those limitations.” Kleiber, 485 F.3d at 871 (quoting 29 C.F.R. § 1630.2(o)(3)). This process is mandatory, and “both parties have a duty to participate in good faith.”

Section 1630.2(o)(3) requires an informal, interactive process to understand an employee’s disability-related limitations and consider accommodations to address them.

Green v. Rocket Mortgage, LLC · filed 2025-03-07(o)(3)

When an employee requests a reasonable accommodation, “it may be necessary for the [employer] to initiate an informal, interactive process with the [employee].” 29 C.F.R. § 1630.2(o)(3). ... The goal of the interactive process is to understand the specific limitations caused by the disability and consider possible accommodations to overcome those limitations. 29 C.F.R. § 1630.2(o)(3).

Section 1630.2(o)(3) calls for an informal interactive process to identify an employee’s precise disability-related limitations and potential reasonable accommodations.

Tarquinio v. Johns Hopkins University Applied Physics Lab · filed 2025-06-25(o)(3)

The ADA’s implementing regulations contemplate that an employer will often have to “initiate an informal, interactive process” with an employee to identify a reasonable accommodation. 29 C.F.R. § 1630.2(o)(3). This process, as envisioned by the regulations, “should identify the precise limitations resulting from the disability and potential reasonable accommodations that could overcome those limitations.” Id. ... That’s why the ADA’s implementing regulations specify that a goal of the interactive process is to “identify the precise limitations resulting from the disability.” 29 C.F.R. § 1630.2(o)(3).

Section 1630.2(o)(3) requires the parties to participate in good faith in an interactive process to identify disability-related limitations and potential reasonable accommodations once an objectively reasonable accommodation is proposed.

Root v. Decorative Paint Incorporated · filed 2025-07-16(o)(3)

In other words, once a plaintiff shows she proposed an objectively reasonable accommodation, the interactive process mandate is triggered and both parties must participate in good faith “to ‘identify the precise limitations resulting from the disability and potential reasonable accommodations that could overcome those limitations.’” Kleiber, 485 F.3d at 871 (quoting 29 C.F.R. § 1630.2(o)(3)). The purpose of the interactive process mandate would be defeated if the employer could sidestep its duty to participate in the interactive process by proving that the plaintiff’s initial proposed accommodation, while objectively reasonable, would impose “undue hardship.” Therefore, as a matter of law, I conclude the jury may not be instructed to consider “undue hardship” as a defense to Plaintiff’s failure to accommodate claim under the theory of failure to engage in the interactive process.

Section 1630.2(o)(3) requires an employer to initiate an informal interactive process when necessary to determine an employee’s disability-related work limitations and identify appropriate reasonable accommodations.

Wedgworth v. Shelby County Government · filed 2025-09-26(o)(3)

“An employer is required ‘to initiate an informal interactive process’ when necessary to determine how an employee’s disability limits his ability to work and to identify appropriate reasonable accommodations.” Williams v. AT&T Mobility Servs. LLC, 847 F.3d 384, 395 (6th Cir. 2017) (quoting 29 C.F.R. § 1630.2(o)(3)).

Section 1630.2(o)(3) describes the interactive process as a good-faith conference by both parties to identify the disability-related limitations and potential reasonable accommodations.

Canipe · filed 2025-10-14(o)(3)

As an offshoot of Mr. Canipe’s failure-to-accommodate claim, Mr. Canipe’s claim for failure to engage in the interactive process—the process by which both parties must confer in good faith and “identify the precise limitations resulting from the disability and potential reasonable accommodations,” 29 C.F.R. § 1630.2(o)(3)—depends on whether his failure-to-accommodate claim is viable, see Thompson v. Fresh Prods., LLC, 985 F.3d 509, 525 (6th Cir. 2021) (“In this circuit, failure to engage in the interactive process does not give rise to an independent claim. Instead, it is a violation of the ADA only if the plaintiff establishes a prima facie case of failure to accommodate.” (citations omitted)).

Section 1630.2(o)(3) requires an employer to begin the interactive process only after an employee requests a reasonable accommodation.

Fitzpatrick · filed 2026-04-30(o)(3)

Only after an employee requests a reasonable accommodation must the employer initiate an interactive process to identify an appropriate one. Id.; 29 C.F.R. § 1630.2(o)(3). Fitzpatrick argues that she initiated the interactive process by seeking schedule flexibility and telework options related to her medical condition. Doc. 41 at 18. That argument fails for two independent reasons. First, a bare request for workplace flexibility does not trigger the employer’s interactive-process obligations; the employee must link the request to her disability rather than present it in a vacuum. Williamson v. Clarke Cnty. Dep’t of Hum. Res., 834 F. Supp. 2d 1310, 1320 (S.D. Ala. 2011). Second, and more fundamentally, Fitzpatrick was never denied a request to telework or adjust her schedule when she cited medical reasons for doing so. Doc. 37 at ¶19. She further acknowledged that during her medical flare-ups she is incapable of working at all, Doc. 35-1 at 45, and it is uncontested that she refused telework opportunities when they were offered, Doc. 35-3 at 14. Because Fitzpatrick has not identified any reasonable accommodation the City denied her, her failure-to-accommodate claim fails at the threshold.

Section 1630.2(o)(3) describes the interactive process as an informal process for identifying disability-related limitations and potential reasonable accommodations.

Phillips · filed 2026-05-07(o)(3)

Case law describes the extra-statutory procedure as “an informal, interactive process,” a “dialogue,” “to identify the precise limitations resulting from the disability and potential reasonable accommodations that could overcome those limitations.” Brumley, 909 F.3d at 840; accord 29 C.F.R. § 1630.2(o)(3). A failure to provide an employer with needed information or confirmation (such as from a medical provider) would be a failure to comply with the interactive process; failure to fill out an employer’s mandated form does not, at least not in and of itself.

Section 1630.2(o)(3) requires an employer, when necessary, to use an informal interactive process to identify disability-related limitations and potential reasonable accommodations; a failure to engage in that process is actionable only if the employee is qualified for the position.

Lonergan v. Gallagher Sharp, LLP · filed 2026-05-29(o)(3)

The regulations under the ADA state, in relevant part, that “it may be necessary for the [employer] to initiate an informal, interactive process” to “identify the precise limitations resulting from the disability and potential reasonable accommodations that could overcome those limitations.” Nance v. Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co., 527 F.3d 539, 556 (6th Cir. 2008) (alteration in original) (quoting 29 C.F.R. § 1630.2(o)(3)). That process is mandatory, id., “[b]ut an employer’s failure to engage in the interactive process is actionable only if the employee can demonstrate that she was qualified for the position[,]” Williams v. AT&T Mobility Servs. LLC, 847 F.3d 384, 395 (6th Cir. 2017) (quoting E.E.O.C. v. Ford Motor Co., 782 F.3d 753, 766 (6th Cir. 2015) (en banc)).

Section 1630.2(o)(3) requires an employer and employee to engage in an informal interactive process to identify the employee’s disability-related limitations and potential reasonable accommodations.

Deans · filed 2026-06-10(o)(3)

Under the ADA, an employer must engage in an “informal, interactive process” with the employee to “identify the precise limitations resulting from the disability and potential reasonable accommodations that could overcome those limitations.” Kleiber v. Honda of Am. Mfg., Inc., 485 F.3d 862, 871 (6th Cir. 2007) (quoting 29 C.F.R. § 1630.2(o)(3)). ... Although Deans disagrees that this process was interactive, it indeed bore the hallmarks of interaction—direct communication between the parties about Deans’ limitations and Thermo Fisher’s offers to accommodate her.

Section 1630.2(o)(3) requires an employer to engage in an interactive process to identify a reasonable accommodation after receiving notice of an employee's disability and desire for accommodation.

Barnett v. U.S. Air, Inc. · filed 2000-10-04(o)(3)

Therefore, we join explicitly with the vast majority of our sister circuits in holding that the interactive process is a mandatory rather than a permissive obligation on the part of employers under the ADA and that this obligation is triggered by an employee or an employee's representative giving notice of the employee's disability and the desire for accommodation.

Section 1630.2(o)(3) calls for an informal interactive process to identify potential reasonable accommodations; an employer need not discuss every conceivable accommodation.

Tobin v. Liberty Mutual Insurance Company · filed 2005-12-23(o)(3)

As the ADA regulations themselves state, the "interactive process" is to be "informal" and a means of uncovering " potential reasonable accommodations" that could overcome the employee's disability.

The interactive process for identifying a reasonable accommodation requires both the agency and the individual seeking accommodation to participate in good faith.

Sanchez-Alicea v. Department of Veterans Affairs · filed 2022-11-18(o)(3)

Both parties, including the appellant, are expected to engage in this interactive process in good faith.

Section 1630.2(o)(3) calls for an interactive process to identify reasonable accommodations; the employee may bear responsibility when that process breaks down.

Hendricks-Robinson v. Excel Corp. · filed 1997-08-04(o)(3)

“Once an employer knows of an employee’s disability and the employee has requested reasonable accommodations, the ADA and its implementing regulations require that the parties engage in an interactive process to determine what precise accommodations are necessary.” Beck v. Univ. of Wisconsin Bd. of Regents, 75 F.3d 1130, 1137 (7th Cir.1996); 29 C.F.R. § 1630.2(o)(3); 29 C.F.R. § 1630, App. ... In the present case, the Court finds that the responsibility lies with Plaintiffs.

An employee can cause a breakdown in the interactive process for identifying a reasonable accommodation by failing to apply for available positions.

Thompson v. Dot Foods, Inc. · filed 1998-06-05(o)(3)

The Court believes that Thompson was the cause of the break-down in the interactive process by failing to apply for at least some of those available positions.

Section 1630.2(o)(3) contemplates an informal process to identify an employee’s disability-related limitations and possible reasonable accommodations.

Kennedy v. St. Francis Hospital · filed 2002-08-22(o)(3)

The Court cannot conclude as a matter of law that defendants’ significant delay in returning Kennedy to work, justified only by a blanket reference to their policy of requiring all employees to be cleared by an occupational health specialist, complied with the ADA’s requirements, especially given the interactive process contemplated by the ADA in which “employers and employees work together to assess whether an employee’s disability can be reasonably accommodated,” Jackan v. New York State Dept. of Labor, 205 F.3d 562, 566 (2d Cir.2000) (citing Beck v. University of Wis. Bd. of Regents, 75 F.3d 1130, 1135 (7th Cir.1996) and 29 C.F.R. § 1630.2(o)(3) (“To determine the appropriate reasonable accommodation it may be necessary for the covered entity to initiate an informal, interactive process with the qualified individual with a disability in need of the accommodation. This process should identify the precise limitations resulting from the disability and potential reasonable accommodations that could overcome those limitations.”)).

An employer’s duty to engage in an interactive process to identify a reasonable accommodation does not arise until the employee requests an accommodation.

Lockard v. General Motors Corp. · filed 2002-12-11(o)(3)

Because we find Lockard failed to request a reasonable accommodation from her employer, the defendant’s duty to engage in an interactive search for a reasonable accommodation never arose.

The regulation calls for employer and employee participation in an interactive process to identify a reasonable accommodation.

Calero-Cerezo v. United States Department of Justice · filed 2004-01-14(o)(3)

The scope of the employer's obligation in this process is not crystal clear, but "[t]he employer has at least some responsibility in determining the necessary accommodation," since "the regulations envision an interactive process that requires participation by both parties."

Section 1630.2(o)(3) calls for the employer and employee to participate in an interactive process to identify a reasonable accommodation.

Bartee v. Michelin North America, Inc. · filed 2004-06-29(o)(3)

To facilitate the reasonable accommodation, “[t]he federal regulations implementing the ADA envision an interactive process that requires participation by both parties.” Templeton v. Neodata Servs., Inc., 162 F.3d 617, 619 (10th Cir. 1998) (quotation omitted); see also 29 C.F.R. § 1630.2(o)(3).

Section 1630.2(o)(3) provides for an informal interactive process to identify a reasonable accommodation; an employer that fails to engage in that process may be denied summary judgment if an accommodation could have been available.

Dark v. Curry County Curry County Road Department Dan Crumley, Individually and in His Official Capacity as Curry · filed 2006-07-06(o)(3)

Because the County did not engage in any such process, summary judgment is available only if a reasonable finder of fact must conclude that “there would in any event have been no reasonable accommodation available.”

An obvious disability does not require an employer to provide a particular accommodation when the employee’s needs vary and the appropriate accommodation is unclear.

Enica v. Principi · filed 2008-10-06(o)(3)

As such, we do not view this to be a case where a disability is so obvious that an employer would be required to provide a particular accommodation.

An employer’s failure to engage in the interactive process does not support an ADA accommodation claim unless the employee shows that an accommodation would have made her qualified for the position.

McBride v. BIC Consumer Products Manufacturing Co. · filed 2009-10-05(o)(3)

Accordingly, we adopt the reasoning of our sister Circuits and hold that an employer’s failure to engage in a sufficient interactive process does not form the basis of a claim under the ADA and evidence thereof does not allow a plaintiff to avoid summary judgment unless she also establishes that, at least with the aid of some identified accommodation, she was qualified for the position at issue.

Section 1630.2(o)(3) requires an employer and employee to discuss possible accommodations in good faith after the employee requests one.

Burress v. City of Franklin · filed 2011-08-17(o)(3)

This request also triggered the City’s obligation to engage in a good-faith discussion of possible accommodations.

The informal interactive process requirement may be satisfied through correspondence between an employer and an employee’s counsel.

Penn-Hilbert v. Lehigh County Prison · filed 2013-09-03(o)(3)

The initiation of the informal interaction requirement was satisfied by the exchange of correspondence in August of 2007 between the defendant and plaintiff’s then-counsel.

Section 1630.2(o)(3) describes an informal interactive process for identifying an appropriate accommodation, but failure of that process does not create a separate cause of action.

Bunn v. Khoury Enterprises, Inc. · filed 2014-05-28(o)(3)

While the EEOC regulations accompanying the ADA do suggest that “it may be necessary for the [employer] to initiate an informal, interactive process with the [employee]” to determine an appropriate accommodation, 29 C.F.R. § 1630.2(o)(3) (emphasis ... added), there is no separate cause of action for a failure of that interactive process.

Section 1630.2(o)(3) contemplates an informal interactive process to identify an employee’s limitations and possible reasonable accommodations. Whether an employer met that obligation depends on the circumstances.

Quadir v. New York State Department of Labor · filed 2014-08-19(o)(3)

Here, based on the allegations, it is not clear that the Department discharged its obligations to participate in the interactive process. It would not be appropriate to resolve these highly fact-sensitive issues on a motion to dismiss.

The interactive process for identifying a reasonable accommodation requires current medical information and good-faith communication about the employee’s limitations.

Allen v. City of Raleigh · filed 2015-09-23(o)(3)

Having the City review non-current medical information from 2000 to 2011 and non-responsive medical information from January 2013 and guess at an accommodation in 2013 is not the open, interactive process that the ADA requires.

The informal interactive process does not create a separate claim when the employer provides the requested accommodations.

Eubank v. Lockhart Independent School District · filed 2017-01-17(o)(3)

Her arguments concerning the delay of formal approval create—at most—a fact issue as to whether the District engaged in the interactive process in good faith. However, the ADA creates a cause of action for failure to accommodate, not for failure to engage in an interactive process alone.

Section 1630.2(o)(3) does not require an employer to initiate an interactive accommodation process for someone claiming disability solely under the ADA’s “regarded as” prong.

Silver v. Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc. · filed 2017-11-15(o)(3)

Because Defendants were not required to accommodate Plaintiff or initiate an interactive process under 29 C.F.R. § 1630.2(o)(3) to identify an accommodation, their alleged failure to take these actions cannot constitute a violation of the ADA.

Section 1630.2(o)(3) contemplates an informal process to identify a worker’s limitations and possible accommodations, which an employer’s categorical refusal can foreclose.

McClain v. Tenax Corp. · filed 2018-01-12(o)(3)

This all-or-nothing ultimatum from Tenax slammed the door on any possibility of a reasonable accommodation, foreclosed the option of McClain working just part-time as a janitor (without the pallet-wrapping duties), and obliterated any possibility that the ADA interactive process could ever take place.

Section 1630.2(o)(3) requires an employer and an employee requesting a reasonable accommodation to engage in a good-faith interactive process to identify the employee’s limitations and potential accommodations.

United States v. Dental Dreams, LLC · filed 2018-03-28(o)(3)

Furthermore, once an employee requests a reasonable accommodation, the ADA requires an employer, in determining the appropriate reasonable accommodation, "to initiate an informal, interactive process with the individual with a disability in need of the accommodation" in order to "identify the precise limitations resulting from the disability and potential reasonable accommodations that could overcome those limitations." 29 C.F.R. § 1630.2(o)(3). The interactive process is mandatory and requires both parties to engage in good faith.

Section 1630.2(o)(3) provides for an interactive process to identify an employee's limitations and possible reasonable accommodations; disputed facts about the parties' communications can prevent a court from assigning fault for its breakdown.

Hastings v. Fayette Cnty. Sch. · filed 2018-07-05(o)(3)

To begin, the ADA's regulations provide that "it may be necessary for the [employer] to initiate an informal, interactive process with the individual with a disability ... [to] identify the precise limitations resulting from the disability and potential reasonable accommodations that could overcome those limitations." 29 C.F.R. § 1630.2(o)(3). ... Given that it is inappropriate for the Court to gauge credibility at summary judgment, Kroll v. White Lake Ambulance Auth., 763 F.3d 619, 623 (6th Cir. 2014), the Court cannot make a determination as to who caused the breakdown and thus cannot apportion fault.

Section 1630.2(o)(3)'s interactive process language does not create an independent claim for failure to investigate accommodations when the employee cannot show that a reasonable accommodation was denied.

Kassa v. Synovus Bank · filed 2019-01-03(o)(3)

So, to the extent Kassa seeks to assert an ADA claim based on Synovus's alleged failure to engage in an interactive process to find a reasonable accommodation, that claim fails.

An employer aware of an employee's disability is expected to engage in meaningful dialogue about accommodations; active engagement satisfies the interactive process requirement.

Finnegan v. CSX Transp., Inc. · filed 2019-03-25(o)(3)

The ADA's regulations provide that "it may be necessary for [the employer] to initiate an informal, interactive process with the qualified individual [the employee] with a disability in need of the accommodation." 29 C.F.R. § 1630.2(o)(3) (2005). Accordingly, where an employer becomes aware of an employee's disability, it is expected to engage in a meaningful dialogue with the employee to find the best means of accommodating that disability. ... There is more than ample evidence that CSX employees not only knew of their obligation to work with Finnegan to determine whether he could perform the essential functions of his job as Trainmaster, and if necessary, any accommodations which would permit him to perform those job functions, they actively engaged with Finnegan and his counsel regarding his disability and proposed accommodations.

Section 1630.2(o)(3) requires an employer to engage in an interactive process after receiving an employee’s request for accommodation.

Ryder v. Beaumont Health, Inc. · filed 2019-10-09(o)(3)

Beaumont’s receipt of these communications triggered its obligation to engage in an interactive process to find a suitable position outside of “a hospital or clinic environment requiring daily patient ... contact.” (ECF No. 53-30, PageID.2759); see also 29 C.F.R. § 1630.2(o)(3); Belasco v. Warrensville Heights City Sch. Dist., 634 F. App’x 507, 516 (6th Cir. 2015) (explaining that the ADA’s interactive process is triggered once the defendant becomes aware of the plaintiff’s request for accommodation.).

Section 1630.2(o)(3) contemplates an informal, interactive process to identify an employee’s disability-related limitations and potential reasonable accommodations.

Spector v. District of Columbia Department on Disability Services · filed 2020-02-28(o)(3)

Instead, Equal Employment Opportunity Commission regulations envision that “it may be necessary for the [employer] to initiate an informal, interactive process with the individual” to “identify the precise limitations resulting from the disability and potential ... reasonable accommodations that could overcome those limitations.” 29 C.F.R. § 1630.2(o)(3).

Section 1630.2(o)(3) provides for an interactive process to identify an appropriate reasonable accommodation for a qualified employee with a disability.

Maese-Thomason v. Embry-Riddle Aeronautical University · filed 2023-09-08(o)(3)

But as discussed, Defendant had an “affirmative obligation” to engage in an interactive process to determine whether an alternative reasonable accommodation was available that would allow Plaintiff to retain her employment.

Section 1630.2(j)(1)(ix) recognizes that an impairment lasting or expected to last fewer than six months can still be substantially limiting.

Menefee v. Action Resources LLC · filed 2020-12-14(j)(1)(ix)

Congress removed an interpretation of “disability” that excludes all temporary impairments, and the EEOC regulations implementing the amendments provide that “[t]he effects of an impairment lasting or expected to last fewer than six months can be substantially limiting.” 29 C.F.R. § 1630.2(j)(1)(ix).

An impairment lasting or expected to last fewer than six months can still substantially limit a major life activity.

Modjeska v. United Parcel Service Inc. · filed 2014-10-16(j)(ix)

District courts within this circuit have recognized that while a temporary impairment may not have been considered a disability prior to 2009, the regulations of the AD AAA provide that “[t]he effects of an impairment lasting or expected to last fewer than six months can be substantially limiting within the meaning of this section.” ... In light of the 2009 amendments, the case law UPS cites does not provide a basis for finding that Modjeska’s left arm impairment is not a disability for the purposes of the ADA as amended.

A short-duration, non-chronic impairment can substantially limit a major life activity when its effects are significant, unlike an impairment with little or no residual effects.

Feldman v. Law Enforcement Associates Corp. · filed 2011-03-10(j)(8)

“Temporary, non-chronic impairments of short duration with little or no residual effects (such as the common cold, seasonal or common influenza, a sprained joint, minor and non-chronic gastrointestinal disorders, or a broken bone that is expected to heal completely) usually will not substantially limit a major life activity.” ... “As a result, the court finds that a TIA is not comparable to a common cold, a sprained joint, or any of the other examples listed in the proposed EEOC regulations.”

Section 1630.2 supports evaluating whether a temporary or future impairment is substantially limiting by considering its nature, severity, and expected duration.

Doukas v. MetLife · filed 1997-10-21(j)

Both the Egual Employment Opportunity Commission and the Department of Justice recognize that a temporary impairment may or may not gualify as a disability depending upon the nature and severity of the impairment and its expected duration. See id.; 29 C.F.R. § 1630.2 (1996). Thus an impairment that limits a major life activity in the present may not gualify as a substantial limitation if it is temporary. Similarly, a future limitation may or may not gualify as a substantial limitation depending upon its nature, severity, and expected duration.

The six-month transitory-and-minor exception applies only to the regarded-as prong; temporary impairments may qualify under the actual-disability or record-of-impairment prongs when sufficiently severe, and an employer may need to initiate an informal interactive process for reasonable accommodation.

Barnes v. North Mississippi Medical Center, Inc. · filed 2020-06-25(j)(1)(ix), (j), (o)(3)

Impairments that last for a short period of time are typically not covered because they are considered transitory and minor. See 29 C.F.R. § 1630.2(j)(1)(ix). According to these guidelines, this six month “transitory and minor” exception only applies to the “regarded as” prong and does not apply to the “actual disability” or the “record of” prong. ... It is well-established that an employer may need to initiate an informal, interactive process with a qualified individual with a disability in order to reasonably accommodate them. 29 C.F.R. § 1630.2(o)(3).

Section 1630.2(j)(ix) recognizes that an impairment lasting or expected to last fewer than six months may still substantially limit a major life activity.

Anderson v. L. Keeley Construction · filed 2022-08-22(j)(ix)

The ADA and ADAAA do not contain a time limitation on a claim of actual, perceived disability; even a temporary disability could bring a Plaintiff within the protections of the ADA according to current regulations. See 29 C.F.R. § 1630.2(j)(ix) (“The effects of an impairment lasting or expected to last fewer than six months can be substantially limiting within the meaning of this section.”)

An impairment qualifies as substantially limiting only when it substantially limits a major life activity compared with most people, and an episodic impairment is assessed by its substantial limitation when active.

Reinhart v. Birmingham, City of · filed 2024-09-26(j)(1)(vii)

The evidence, as recounted above, shows that Reinhart is not “substantially limited” as compared to the general population. ... A single use of a walker over the course of over a year does not constitute the sort of “episodic” disability to which § 1630.2(j) refers.

Section 1630.2(n)(3)’s essential-function inquiry is fact intensive and no single listed factor is dispositive.

Hernandez v. International Shoppes, LLC · filed 2015-04-23(n)(3)

Whether a given work obligation is an essential function is fact intensive. No one factor is dispositive.

The regulation defines essential functions as fundamental rather than marginal job duties and directs courts to consider evidence such as the employer’s judgment, job description, time spent, consequences of omission, and comparable employees’ work experience.

Hawkins v. Schwan's Home Service, Inc. · filed 2015-02-19(n)(1), (n)(2)(ii), (n)(3), (n)(3)(iii)

The ADAAA’s implementing regulations, duly promulgated by the EEOC, define “essential functions” as “the fundamental job duties of the employment position the individual with a disability holds or desires,” but “not . . . the marginal functions of the position.” 29 C.F.R. § 1630.2(n)(1). A particular job duty “may be essential because the reason the position exists is to perform that function,” id. § 1630.2(n)(2)(i), or “because of the limited number of employees available among whom the performance of that job function can be distributed,” id. § 1630.2(n)(2)(ii). ... The third factor considered in the essential-function inquiry is the amount of time spent performing the disputed function. See 29 C.F.R. § 1630.2(n)(3)(iii). ... In sum, reviewing the district court’s assessment of the EEOC factors, we have no trouble accepting its ultimate conclusion regarding DOT certification. ... The district court explicitly relied upon these undisputed facts—most of which were adduced by SHS—to find that, as a matter of law, DOT certification was an essential function of the facility-supervisor position.

Section 1630.2(n)(1) defines essential functions as the fundamental duties of the position the individual with a disability holds or desires.

Minnihan v. Mediacom Communications Corp. · filed 2015-03-09(n)(1)

Essential functions are "the fundamental job duties of the employment position the individual with a disability holds or desires." 29 C.F.R. § 1630.2(n)(1). ... Given all these factors, we find that driving was an essential function of the TOS position.

Section 1630.2(n) defines essential functions as the fundamental duties of a position, excludes marginal functions, and treats the employer’s judgment and a preexisting written job description as evidence of whether a function is essential.

Wilson v. County of Bernalillo · filed 2000-04-25(n)(1), (n)(3)(ii)

“The term ‘essential functions’ is defined as ‘the fundamental job duties of the employment position the individual with a disability holds or desires.’” Martin v. Kansas , 190 F.3d 1120, 1130 (10th Cir. 1999) (quoting 29 C.F.R. § 1630.2(n)(1)). Determining whether a particular function is essential is a factual inquiry. See id. In making this determination, courts must give consideration to the employer’s judgment as to what functions of a job are essential, including those functions contained in a written job description. See id. ; see also 29 C.F.R. § 1630.2(n)(3)(ii) (evidence of whether a particular function is essential includes “[w]ritten job descriptions prepared before advertising or interviewing applicants for the job”). ... The job description therefore is evidence that restraint of inmates is an essential function of the position. See 29 C.F.R. § 1630.2(n)(3)(ii).

Section 1630.2(n)(1) requires consideration of the employer’s judgment when determining a job’s essential functions.

Morris v. City of New York · filed 2001-08-06(n)(1)

In determining what constitutes “the essential functions” of the job, “consideration shall be given to the employer’s judgment.” 29 C.F.R. § 1630.2(n)(l).

(n)(3) treats an employer’s written job description as evidence of whether a function is essential.

Reeves v. Dollar General Corp · filed 1999-04-26(n)(3)

An employer’s “written job description[]” is valid evidence that a particular task is an essential job function. See 29 C.F.R. § 1630.2(n)(3).

An employer’s judgment about which job functions are essential is important evidence but is not dispositive; the essential-function inquiry also considers the other listed factors.

Iselin v. Bama Companies · filed 2017-05-26(n)(3)(i)

Though we “weigh heavily the employer’s judgment regarding whether a job function is essential,” the employer’s judgment is not dispositive. See Hennagir v. Utah Dep’t of Corr., 587 F.3d 1255, 1262 (10th Cir. 2009) (analyzing multiple factors to determine whether a certification was an essential job function). Rather, the employer’s judgment is just one factor that we consider, albeit an important one. Id.; 29 C.F.R. § 1630.2(n)(3)(i).

(n)(3) treats written job descriptions prepared before hiring as evidence of whether a job function is essential.

Lipp v. Cargill Meat Solutions Corp. · filed 2018-12-19(n)(3)

The ADA’s implementing regulations further provide that evidence of whether a function is essential includes, among other things, “[w]ritten job descriptions prepared before advertising or interviewing applicants for the job.” 29 C.F.R. § 1630.2(n)(3). ... Here, Cargill maintained a written attendance policy stating that “regular attendance is crucial” to its operations. It enforced its policy with a system of progressive discipline, culminating in termination after accruing nine “occurrence” points. In addition, all of Lipp’s listed job activities in Cargill’s written job description, including labeling boxes and moving pallets, required being present on Cargill’s premises. Thus, we are convinced that regular and reliable attendance was an essential function of Lipp’s job.

Under § 1630.2(n)(3)(i), the employer’s judgment about which job functions are essential is a factor in determining whether a function is essential.

Scroggs v. Palmetto Gourmet Foods, Inc. · filed 2026-01-30(n)(3)(i)

The factors to be considered when deciding whether a function is essential include the following: (1) the employer’s judgment as to which functions are essential; ... (7) the current work experience of incumbents in similar jobs. 29 C.F.R. § 1630.2(n)(3)(i)-(vii). Turning to the first factor, as noted by the Magistrate Judge, Defendant presented its attendance policy which requires prompt and regular attendance as well as declarations from Defendant’s Human Resources Manager and Plaintiff’s supervisor who both averred that prompt and regular attendance is an essential function for positions that are “process critical,” including the maintenance technician position.2 ECF Nos. 64-1 at 4; 64-2 at 2–3.

A reasonable accommodation must enable equal benefits and privileges of employment, and qualified readers or interpreters can satisfy that requirement when they are effective, even if they are not the employee’s preferred accommodation.

Noll v. International Business Machines Corp. · filed 2015-05-21(o)(1)(iii), (o)(2)(ii)

A reasonable accommodation is one that ... [or] to enjoy equal benefits and privileges of employment.” ... the term “reasonable accommodation” is defined by regulation to include “the provision of qualified readers or interpreters.” ... But according to the regulations, interpreters are a common form of reasonable accommodation.

The regulation defines a reasonable accommodation as a workplace change or modification that enables a person with a disability to participate equally with nondisabled employees.

Kells v. Buick-GMC · filed 2000-04-27(o)(1)(iii)

An accommodation is simply some change or modification in the work environment which allows an individual with a disability to participate on an equal footing with non-disabled employees.

Section 1630.2(o)(1)(ii) defines reasonable accommodations as changes to the work environment or performance conditions that enable a qualified individual with a disability to perform essential job functions.

Richards v. Seariver Maritime Financial Holdings, Inc. · filed 1998-11-12(o)(1)(ii)

“Reasonable accommodations” means “modifications or adjustments to the work environment, or to the manner or circumstances under which the position held or desired is customarily performed, that enable a qualified individual with a disability to perform the essential functions of that position.” 29 C.F.R. § 1630.2(o)(l)(ii).

(o)(ii) defines reasonable accommodation to include modifications or adjustments that enable a qualified individual with a disability to perform the essential functions of the position.

Novella v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. · filed 2006-04-19(o)(ii)

Additionally, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission defines the term “reasonable accommodation” to include “modification or adjustments to the work environment, or to the manner or circumstances under which the position held or desired is customarily performed, that enable a qualified individual with a disability to perform the essential functions of that position” and “modifications and adjustments that enable a covered entity’s employee with a disability to enjoy the equal benefits and privileges of employment as other similarly situated employees without disabilities.” 29 C.F.R. § 1630.2(o)(ii) & (iii) (1995).

Section 1630.2(o)(1)(ii) defines a reasonable accommodation as modifications or adjustments to the work environment or job circumstances that enable a qualified individual with a disability to perform the position's essential functions.

Sataki v. Broadcasting Board of Governors · filed 2010-07-07(o)(1)(ii)

A reasonable accommodation is defined as “[m]odifications or adjustments to the work environment, or to the manner or circumstances under which the position held or desired is customarily performed, that enable a qualified individual with a disability to perform the essential functions of that position.” ... the evidence in the present record indicates that this request is neither a reasonable accommodation under Rehabilitation Act case law nor consistent with her own description of her present disabilities.

Section 1630.2 defines a reasonable accommodation as work-related modifications or adjustments that enable a qualified individual with a disability to perform essential job functions and calls for an informal interactive process to identify limitations and potential accommodations.

Sataki v. Broadcasting Board of Governors · filed 2010-06-01(o)(1)(ii), (o)(3)

A reasonable accommodation is defined as “Modifications or adjustments to the work environment, or to the manner or circumstances under which the position held or desired is customarily performed, that enable a qualified individual with a disability to perform the essential functions of that position.” 29 C.F.R. § 1630.2(o )(l)(ii). In order to determine the appropriate reasonable accommodation, the agency should “initiate an informal, interactive process with the qualified individual with a disability in need of the accommodation,” which “process should identify the precise limitations resulting from the disability and potential reasonable accommodations that could overcome those limitations.”

Section 1630.2(a)(ii) defines a reasonable accommodation as changes to the work environment or the way a job is performed that enable a qualified individual with a disability to perform the position's essential functions.

Patterson v. Yazoo City · filed 2012-02-24(a)(ii)

The Defendants do not address the specific reasons why it would be impractical to accommodate Patterson’s need for transportation. A reasonable accommodation is defined as "[m]odifications or adjustments to the work environment, or to the manner or circumstances under which the position held or desired is customarily performed, that enable an individual with a disability who is qualified to perform the essential functions of that position.” 29 C.F.R. § 1630.2(a)(ii).

Section 1630.2(o)(1)(ii) treats modifications or adjustments to the work environment or the manner or circumstances of performing a job as reasonable accommodations when they enable a qualified individual with a disability to perform the position’s essential functions.

Goonan v. Federal Reserve Bank · filed 2013-01-07(o)(1)(ii)

EEOC regulations define “reasonable accommodation” to include “[m]odifieations or adjustments to the work environment, or to the manner or circumstances under which the position held or desired is customarily performed, that enable an individual with a disability who is qualified to perform the essential functions of that position.” 29 C.F.R. § 1630.2(o )(l)(ii).

Section 1630.2(o)(1)(ii) defines a reasonable accommodation as a modification or adjustment to the work environment or the manner of performing a position that enables a qualified individual with a disability to perform its essential functions.

Castro v. City of New York · filed 2014-06-05(o)(1)(ii)

The term “reasonable accommodation” means “[mjodifications or adjustments to the work environment, or to the manner or circumstances under which the position ... is customarily performed, that enable an individual with a disability who is qualified to perform the essential functions of that position.” 29 C.F.R. § 1630.2(o )(l)(ii). ... Nothing in plaintiffs testimony demonstrates that Castro requested the MetroCard in order to modify the manner in which his position was customarily performed, so that, in light of his disability, he would have been better able to perform the essential functions of his position.

Section 1630.2(o)(1)(ii) defines reasonable accommodation as modifications or adjustments to the work environment or job circumstances that enable a qualified individual with a disability to perform essential job functions.

Hizer v. South Bend Tribune · filed 2014-07-01(o)(1)(ii)

The term “reasonable accommodation,” means “[m]odifications or adjustments to the work environment, or to the manner or circumstances under which the position held or desired is customarily performed, that enable [a qualified] individual with a disability ... to perforin the essential functions of that position[.]” 29 C.F.R. § 1630.2(o)(1)(ii).

Section 1630.2(o)(l)(ii) defines reasonable accommodations as modifications or adjustments that enable a qualified individual with a disability to perform essential job functions.

Reeves ex rel. Reeves v. Jewel Food Stores, Inc. · filed 2014-07-17(o)(l)(ii)

Reasonable accommodations are “[mjodifications or adjustments to the work environment, or to the manner or circumstances under which the position held or desired is customarily performed, that enable [a qualified] individual with a disability ... to perform the essential functions of that position[.]” 29 C.F.R. § 1630.2(o)(l)(ii).

Section 1630.2(o)(1)(ii) defines reasonable accommodations as modifications or adjustments to the work environment or to how a position is performed that enable a qualified individual with a disability to perform the position's essential functions.

Michaelene tTtteh v. WAFF Television, Raycom Media, Inc. · filed 2016-02-17(o)(1)(ii)

Reasonable accommodations are “[m]odifications or adjustments to the work environment, or to the manner or circumstances under which the position held or desired is customarily performed, that enable an individual with a disability who is qualified to perform the essential functions of that position.” 29 C.F.R. § 1630.2(o)(1)(ii).

Section 1630.2(o) defines reasonable accommodations as changes to the work environment or job duties that enable a qualified individual with a disability to perform essential job functions.

Murray v. Warren Pumps, LLC · filed 2016-04-25(o)

Reasonable accommodations are modifications or adjustments to the work environment, or to the manner in which the position's duties are customarily performed, that enable a qualified individual with a disability to perform the essential functions of that position.

Section 1630.2(o)(l)(ii) defines reasonable accommodation to include modifications or adjustments to the work environment, or to the manner or circumstances of work, that enable a qualified individual with a disability to perform the essential functions of the position.

Ravel v. Hewlett-Packard Enterprise, Inc. · filed 2017-01-11(o)(l)(ii)

The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, however, has promulgated regulations that define “reasonable accommodation” to include “[m]odifications or adjustments to the work environment, or to the manner or circumstances under which the position held or desired is customarily performed, that enable an individual with a disability who is qualified to perform the essential functions of that position.” 29 C.F.R. § 1630.2(o)(l)(ii).

Section 1630.2(o)(l)(ii) defines a reasonable accommodation as one that enables a qualified individual with a disability to perform the essential functions of the position or enjoy equal benefits and privileges of employment.

Granica v. Town of Hamburg · filed 2017-02-17(o)(l)(ii)

A reasonable accommodation is one that “enables[s] an individual with a disability who is qualified to perform the essential functions of that position ... [or] to enjoy equal benefits and privileges of employment.” 29 C.F.R. § 1630.2(o)(l)(ii)-(iii).

Section 1630.2(o) defines a reasonable accommodation as a workplace modification or adjustment that enables a qualified person with a disability to perform the position's essential functions.

Charette v. St. John Valley Soil & Water Conservation Dist. · filed 2018-08-17(o)

Reasonable accommodations are modifications or adjustments to the work environment, or to the manner in which the position's duties are customarily performed, that enable a qualified individual with a disability to perform the essential functions of that position.

Section 1630.2(o)(ii) defines a reasonable accommodation as modifications or adjustments to the work environment or to how a position is performed that enable a qualified individual with a disability to perform the position's essential functions.

Silveria v. Wilkie · filed 2019-09-12(o)(ii)

A “reasonable accommodation” is defined as “[m]odifications or adjustments to the work environment, or to the manner or circumstances under which the position held or desired is customarily performed, that enable an individual with a disability who is qualified to perform the essential functions of that position[.]” 29 C.F.R. § 1630.2(o)(ii).

Section 1630.2(o)(1)(ii) defines a reasonable accommodation as a modification or adjustment to the work environment or the manner or circumstances of work that enables a qualified individual with a disability to perform essential job functions.

McManis v. Berryhill · filed 2019-12-19(o)(1)(ii)

A reasonable modification is a modification or adjustment “to the work environment, or to the manner or circumstances under which the position is . . . customarily performed, that enable an individual with a disability who is qualified to perform the essential functions of that position.” 29 C.F.R. § 1630.2(o)(1)(ii). ... Here, for example, the ALJ found Plaintiff had the RFC to do jobs with a low stress work setting or work environment – which means an office type work setting in an office with no wide/open spaces. (AR 41). In contrast, the requirement that Plaintiff have the option to have with her, on the job, a small companion dog, imposes a condition on the employer beyond what is typical in the work environment. In other words, whereas other aspects of the RFC limit the types of jobs Plaintiff can perform due to her impairments, the companion dog part of the RFC requires modification to any job environment based on the nature of Plaintiff’s anxiety. As conceded by Plaintiff, such modification to the work environment is an accommodation. (See ECF No. 11-1 at 6-7).

Section 1630.2(o)(1)(ii) defines a reasonable accommodation as changes to the work environment or job performance circumstances that enable a qualified individual with a disability to perform the position's essential functions.

Lober v. Brennan · filed 2020-04-20(o)(1)(ii)

“Reasonable Accommodation” is defined as “modifications or adjustments to the work environment, or to the manner or circumstances under which the position held or desired is customarily performed, that enable a qualified individual with a disability to perform the essential functions of that position.” 29 C.F.R. § 1630.2(o)(1)(ii). The employee bears “the burden of showing the existence of a reasonable accommodation that would have enabled him to perform the essential functions of an available job.”

Section 1630.2(o)(1)(ii) defines a reasonable accommodation as a change in workplace conditions that enables an employee to perform the essential functions of the job.

Trahan v. Wayfair Maine LLC · filed 2020-04-21(o)(1)(ii)

A reasonable accommodation is a change in workplace conditions that would enable an employee to perform the essential functions of her job. See 29 C.F.R. § 1630.2(o)(1)(ii).

Section 1630.2(o)(1)(ii) defines a reasonable accommodation as a modification or adjustment that enables a qualified individual with a disability to perform the essential functions of the position.

Adams v. Maricopa, County of · filed 2020-10-30(o)(1)(ii)

A “reasonable accommodation” is defined in this context as “modifications or adjustments to the work environment, or to the manner or circumstances under which the position held or desired is customarily performed, that enable a qualified individual with a disability to perform the essential functions of that position.” 29 C.F.R. § 1630.2(o)(1)(ii).

Section 1630.2(0)(1)(ii) defines reasonable accommodations as modifications or adjustments that enable a qualified individual with a disability to perform the essential functions of the position.

Shivers v. Saul · filed 2020-12-02(0)(1)(ii)

“Reasonable accommodations” are “[mJodifications or adjustments to the work environment, or to the manner or circumstances under which the position held or desired is customarily performed, that enable an individual with a disability who is qualified to perform the essential functions of that position.” 29 C.F.R. § 1630.2(0)(1)(ii).

Section 1630.2(o)(1)(ii) defines a reasonable accommodation as a modification or adjustment to the work environment or job circumstances that enables a qualified individual with a disability to perform the position's essential functions.

NIVEN-HIMES v. THE PENNSYLVANIA HOSPITAL OF THE UNIVERSITY OF PENNSYLVANIA HEALTH SYSTEM · filed 2021-11-15(o)(1)(ii)

“Reasonable accommodations” are defined as “[m]odifications or adjustments to the work environment, or to the manner or circumstances under which the position held or desired is customarily performed, that enable an individual with a disability who is qualified to perform the essential functions of that position.” 29 C.F.R. § 1630.2(o)(1)(ii). A reasonable accommodation further includes the employer's reasonable efforts to assist the employee and communicate with the employee in good faith, under what has been termed a duty to engage in the “interactive process.”

Section 1630.2(o)(ii) defines reasonable accommodation as changes that enable an already-qualified individual with a disability to perform essential job functions, not changes that establish the person’s qualifications for the job.

Smith v. Lipari Foods · filed 2021-11-30(o)(ii)

This understanding of “reasonable accommodation” is confirmed by language from the regulatory definition of the term. In 29 C.F.R. §1630.2(o)(ii), a reasonable accommodation is defined to include “[m]odifications or adjustments to the work environment, or to the manner or circumstances under which the position held or desired is customarily performed, that enable an individual with a disability who is qualified to perform the essential functions of that position.” Note that the employee is described as “qualified” already, and the “modifications or adjustments” merely “enable” him or her “to perform the essential functions” of the job, not to qualify for the job in the first instance. Similarly here, Smith was not entitled to his requested accommodation in an attempt to meet the qualifications of the position.

Section 1630.2(o)(1) defines a reasonable accommodation as one that enables an individual with a disability to perform essential job functions or enjoy equal employment benefits and privileges.

Einsohn v. New York City Department of Education · filed 2022-03-30(o)(1)

A “reasonable accommodation” therefore “enable[s] an individual with a disability . . . to perform the essential functions of [her] position” or “enjoy equal benefits and privileges of employment as are enjoyed by . . . other similarly situated employees without disabilities.” 29 C.F.R. § 1630.2(o)(1); see Noll, 787 F.3d at 94 (quoting 29 C.F.R. § 1630.2(o)(1)); Norman v. NYU Langone Health Sys., No. 20-3624-cv (L), 20-3745-cv (XAP), 2021 WL 5986999, at *3 (2d Cir. Dec. 17, 2021) (summary order).

Section 1630.2(o)(1)(ii) defines reasonable accommodations as modifications or adjustments to the work environment or to how a position is customarily performed that enable a qualified individual with a disability to perform the position’s essential functions.

COSTA v. GENESIS ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES, LLC · filed 2022-03-30(o)(1)(ii)

“Reasonable accommodations” are defined as “[m]odifications or adjustments to the work environment, or to the manner or circumstances under which the position held or desired is customarily performed, that enable an individual with a disability who is qualified to perform the essential functions of that position.” 29 C.F.R. § 1630.2(o)(1)(ii).

Section 1630.2(o)(1)(ii) defines a reasonable accommodation as a modification to the work environment or the way a job is performed that enables a person with a disability to perform essential job functions.

Hobro v. United Airlines, Inc · filed 2022-09-26(o)(1)(ii)

A reasonable accommodation is defined as modifications to the work environment, or to the manner under which the position is performed, that enable an individual to perform the essential functions of that position. 29 C.F.R. § 1630.2(o)(1)(ii).

Subsection (o)(1)(iii) defines reasonable accommodations as modifications or adjustments that enable an employee with a disability to enjoy equal employment benefits and privileges.

Thomas v. Burrows · filed 2023-02-06(o)(1)(iii)

Reasonable accommodations are “[m]odifications or adjustments that enable a covered entity's employee with a disability to enjoy equal benefits and privileges of employment as are enjoyed by its other similarly situated employees without disabilities.” 29 C.F.R. § 1630.2(o)(1)(iii).

Section 1630.2(o) generally defines reasonable accommodation as a modification or change in the work environment or customary work practices that enables a person with a disability to enjoy equal employment opportunities.

Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. Citizens Bank, N.A. · filed 2023-03-10(o)

Reasonable accommodation means, generally, any modification or change in the work environment or in the way in things are customarily performed that enables an individual with a disability to enjoy equal employment opportunities. 29 C.F.R. § 1630.2(o).

Section 1630.2(o)(1)(ii) defines a reasonable accommodation as one that enables a qualified employee with a disability to perform the essential functions of the position.

Santana v. Mount Vernon City School District/ Board of Education · filed 2023-03-31(o)(1)(ii)

A reasonable accommodation to a disability is one that enables the employee “with a disability who is qualified to perform the essential functions of that position.” 29 C.F.R. § 1630.2(o)(1)(ii).

Section 1630.2(o)(1)(ii) defines a reasonable accommodation as a modification or adjustment that enables a qualified individual with a disability to perform the essential functions of the position.

Monk v. DeJoy · filed 2023-04-10(o)(1)(ii)

A “reasonable accommodation” is defined as “modifications or adjustments to the work environment, or to the manner or circumstances under which the position held or desired is customarily performed, that enable a qualified individual with a disability to perform the essential functions of that position.” 29 C.F.R. § 1630.2(o)(1)(ii).

Subsection (o)(1)(ii) covers reasonable accommodations that enable a qualified individual with a disability to perform the essential functions of the position.

Lewis v. Affiliated Enterprise Solutions, LLC · filed 2024-04-17(o)(1)(ii)

Additionally, Plaintiff has not pled facts suggesting he was denied a reasonable accommodation. “A reasonable accommodation is one that ‘enable[s] an individual with a disability who is qualified to perform the essential functions of that position . . . [or] to enjoy equal benefits and privileges of employment.’” Noll v. Int’l Bus. Machs. Corp., 787 F.3d 89, 94 (2d Cir. 2015) (quoting 29 C.F.R. § 1630.2(o)(1)(ii), (iii)).

Section 1630.2(o)(1) defines reasonable accommodations as modifications or adjustments to the application process, work environment, or employment conditions that enable a qualified individual with a disability to be considered for or perform the job or receive equal employment benefits.

MONROE v. CITY OF PHILADELPHIA, DEPARTMENT OF STREETS · filed 2025-03-20(o)(1)

His claim did not propose a modification to the work environment or the removal of workplace barriers to accommodate his physical disability. Instead, his workers’ compensation claim asked the Department to foot the bill for his hernia surgery, so he, in turn, could perform the essential job functions of a trash collector. Thus, Monroe’s workers’ compensation claim was not a request for accommodation under the ADA, and the Department did not fail to accommodate such a request because none was made.

A reasonable accommodation must enable a qualified person with a disability to perform essential job functions or enjoy equal employment benefits and privileges; an employer need not provide the employee's preferred accommodation.

Reid v. Metro One Loss Prevention Services Group (Guard Division NY), Inc. · filed 2025-09-03(o)(1)(ii)

“Neither this allegation nor any other allegation in the Amended Complaint explains why Reid’s visits to her grandfather on Thursdays, or even visits to her grandfather in general, would enable Reid “to perform the essential functions of” her job as a security guard at an Amazon warehouse or “to enjoy equal benefits and privileges of employment.” Noll, 787 F.3d at 94 (addressing the definition of a reasonable accommodation). But even if the Amended Complaint plausibly alleged that Reid required Thursday visits to her grandfather to perform essential functions of her job or to enjoy the equal benefits and privileges of her job, the Amended Complaint does not allege why Reid could only visit her grandfather on Thursdays—rather than on her other days off during each week. The ADA does not require Metro One to provide Reid with the exact accommodation she requested, but only that it provide a reasonable accommodation for her disability. Noll, 787 F.3d at 95 (“[E]mployers are not required to provide a perfect accommodation or the very accommodation most strongly preferred by the employee.”) The Amended Complaint therefore fails to plausibly plead that Reid requested a reasonable accommodation for her disability in the form of a request to not work on Thursdays so that she could visit her grandfather.

Section 1630.2(o)(1)(ii) defines a reasonable accommodation as a modification to the work environment or how work is performed that enables a qualified person with a disability to perform essential job functions.

Silberman v. Scalia · filed 2025-09-12(o)(1)(ii)

“[a] reasonable accommodation is a modification to the work environment or to the way in which work is performed that allows a qualified individual with a disability to perform the essential functions of her job.” ... “While Silberman was on paid administrative leave, she was not performing her job duties, meaning there was no job or work environment to adjust at the time.”

Section 1630.2(o)(1)(ii) defines a reasonable accommodation as a modification or adjustment to the work environment or job circumstances that enables a qualified individual with a disability to perform essential job functions; an effective accommodation need not be the employee’s preferred one.

Lehman · filed 2025-09-30(o)(1)(ii)

A “reasonable accommodation” is defined as a “modification[ ] or adjustment[ ] to the work environment, or to the manner or circumstances under which the position held or desired is customarily performed, that enable a qualified individual with a disability to perform the essential functions of that position.” 29 C.F.R. § 1630.2(o)(1)(ii). ... Even though Plaintiff may have sought a chair instead of a nearby bench, Defendants are not required to provide the exact accommodation sought by a Plaintiff. ... Further, Plaintiff has presented no evidence that the accommodation provided by Defendant prevented her from doing her job. ... Therefore, because Defendants engaged in the interactive process and provided Plaintiff with areasonable accommodation, Defendants’ motion for summary judgment is granted as to this claim.

Section 1630.2(o)(ii) defines reasonable accommodations as modifications or adjustments that enable a qualified individual with a disability to perform the essential functions of the position.

Lewis · filed 2026-01-29(o)(ii)

“Under the ADA, ‘[r]easonable accommodations’ are ‘modifications or adjustments to the work environment, or to the manner or circumstances under which the position held is desired or customarily performed, that enable an individual with a disability who is qualified to perform the essential functions of that position.’” ... Plaintiff’s requested “accommodations” are all from after he was terminated; he makes no allegation that Didlake failed to make changes to his work environment or position to make it possible for him to do his job.

Section 1630.2(o)(1)(ii) defines a reasonable accommodation as a workplace modification or adjustment that enables a qualified individual with a disability to perform the essential functions of the position.

Adams-Devonish · filed 2026-03-02(o)(1)(ii)

A “reasonable accommodation” includes a “[m]odification[ ] or adjustment[ ] to the work environment, or to the manner or circumstances under which the position held or desired is customarily performed, that enable an individual with a disability who is qualified to perform the essential functions of that position[.]” 29 C.F.R. § 1630.2(o)(1)(ii). ... While the requested parking accommodation may have been ideal given Plaintiff’s medical condition, it was not necessary to enable him to perform the essential functions of his job. ... Here, Plaintiff has provided no evidence as to what his “light duty” accommodation request entails and his initial request was impermissibly vague. ... Accordingly, Plaintiff fails to establish a prima facie case against his employer for failure to accommodate under the ADA.

The regulation requires an individualized assessment of an impairment rather than relying solely on its diagnosis or label.

Orr v. City of Rogers · filed 2017-02-03(j)(iv)

On the other, this Court is obligated to undertake an “individualized assessment” of Orr’s impairment, 29 C.F.R. § 1630.2(j)(iv), and not rely solely on the diagnosis or label applied to her injury.

The regulation requires a broad, individualized assessment of whether an impairment substantially limits a major life activity, measured against most people in the general population, and does not require medical evidence to establish a disability.

Hardwick v. John & Mary E. Kirby Hospital · filed 2012-02-22(j)(l)(iv), (j)(l)(ii), (j)(l)(v)

The regulations have been amended and provide that “the term ‘substantially limits’ shall be interpreted and applied to require a degree of functional limitation that is lower than the standard for ‘substantially limits’ applied prior to” the 2008 amendments to the ADA. 29 C.F.R. § 1680.2(j)(l)(iv). However, the regulations also provide that the “determination of whether an impairment substantially limits a major life activity requires an individualized assessment.” 29 C.F.R. § 1630.2(j)(l)(iv). An impairment is a disability within the meaning of the ADA “if it substantially limits the ability of an individual to perform a major life activity as compared to most people in the general population.” 29 C.F.R. § 1630.2(j)(l)(ii).

To determine whether an impairment substantially limits a major life activity, courts consider its nature and severity, its duration or expected duration, and its permanent or long-term impact.

Cardenas-Meade v. Pfizer, Inc. · filed 2013-01-03(j)(2)

“When determining whether an individual is substantially limited in performing a major life activity, courts should consider three factors: (1) the nature and severity of the impairment; (2) the duration or expected duration of the impairment, and (3) the permanent or long-term impact of the impairment.”

Subsection (m) identifies a qualified individual by job qualifications and ability to perform essential functions with or without reasonable accommodation, while subsection (p) identifies undue-hardship factors and assigns the employer the burden to produce hardship evidence.

A-Ayala v. Lederle Parenterals, Inc. · filed 2000-05-18(m), (p)

"In order to be a "qualified individual" under the Act, the burden is on the employee 10 to show: first, that she "possess[es] 'the requisite skill, experience, education and other job-related requirements'" for the position, and second, [that she is] able to perform the essential functions of the position with or without reasonable accommodation." ... Under the EEOC guidelines, 29 C.F.R. § 1630.2(p), factors to be considered as to undue hardship include the cost of the accommodation, the effect on expenses and resources, the impact of the accommodation on the operation of the facility (including on other employees' ability to do their jobs) and the impact on the facility's ability to conduct business. On this record there is no discernible negative impact on any of these factors; indeed, the record shows hardly any discernable impact at all on the employer from the requested accommodation. As it was the employer's burden to produce evidence of hardship, we hold that it must bear the responsibility for the absence of such evidence here.

Section 1630.2(j)(3)(i) requires a claimant asserting that an impairment substantially limits working to show an inability to perform either a class of jobs or a broad range of jobs in various classes.

Sarko v. Penn-Del Directory Co. · filed 1997-07-09(j)(3)(i)

Under the regulations, a person “is substantially limited in a major life activity if he is ‘[ujnable to perform a major life activity that the average person in the general population can perform’ or is ‘[significantly restricted as to the condition, manner or duration under which [he] can perform a particular major life activity as compared to the condition, manner or duration under which the average person in the general population can perform that same major life activity.’ ” ... In order to establish that depression substantially limits her ability to work, however, Plaintiff “must demonstrate that she is unable to perform ‘either a class of jobs or a broad range of jobs in various classes as compared to the average person.’ ” ... Plaintiff simply fails to offer any evidence that her depression, or the medication she took to combat it, rendered her unable to perform any such class or broad range of jobs. ... We therefore find that Plaintiffs depression in this case did not constitute a substantially limiting impairment under the ADA.

A hospitalization for alcoholism alone does not establish a record of an impairment; the person must have a history of, or have been misclassified as having, an impairment that substantially limits one or more major life activities.

Bilodeau v. Mega Industries · filed 1999-06-07(k)

This Court agrees with the decisions of the Courts of Appeal for the Sixth, Seventh and Eighth Circuits that a hospitalization for an impairment does not in and of itself establish a record of such disability. This conclusion is underscored by the plain language of the implementing regulation which, as stated above, defines a “record of such impairment” as existing when a plaintiff has “a history of, or has been misclassified as having, a mental or physical impairment that substantially limits one or more major life activities.” 29 C.F.R. § 1630.2(k). Thus, to have a “record of such impairment” under the ADA, the Court concludes that a plaintiff must have been misclassified as not just having an impairment, as a hospital stay may connote, but as having an impairment that substantially limits one or more major life activities.

The regulation provides that not every impairment is a disability and requires an impairment to substantially limit a major life activity.

Roller v. Riley Riper Hollin & Colagreco · filed 2012-02-28(j)(l)(ii)

Though “substantially limits” is not meant to be a demanding standard, “[n]ot every impairment will constitute a disability within the meaning of this section.” 29 C.F.R. § 1630.2(j)(l)(ii). ... Therefore, even under the relaxed ADAAA standards, a plaintiff is still required to plead a substantially limiting impairment.

An impairment is substantially limiting when it limits an individual's ability to perform a major life activity compared with most people, even without preventing or severely restricting the activity; an episodic or remitted impairment qualifies if it would substantially limit a major life activity when active.

Wanamaker v. Westport Board of Education · filed 2012-09-25(j)(l)(ii), (j)(1)(vii)

The EEOC regulations provide that under the ADAAA an impairment is a disability within the meaning of the statute where “it substantially limits the ability of an individual to perform a major life activity as compared to most people in the general population. An impairment need not prevent, or significantly or severely restrict, the individual from performing a major life activity in order to be considered substantially limiting.” 29 C.F.R. § 1630.2(j)(l)(ii). The regulations further provide that “[a]n impairment that is episodic or in remission is a disability if it would substantially limit a major life activity when active.” 29 C.F.R. § 1630.2(j)(1)(vii).

An impairment may substantially limit a major life activity even if it does not prevent, significantly restrict, or severely restrict the individual from performing that activity.

Bob-Maunuel v. Chipotle Mexican Grill, Inc. · filed 2014-01-15(j)(l)(ii)

“An impairment need not prevent, or significantly or severely restrict, the individual from performing a major life activity in order to be considered substantially limiting.”

Section 1630.2 treats duration as only one factor and allows an impairment lasting less than six months to be substantially limiting when sufficiently severe, including where it affects musculoskeletal function.

Hopkins v. Mwr Mgmt. Co. · filed 2016-05-13(j)(1)(ix)

The 2008 amendments to the ADA and the accompanying regulations took a more inclusive view that “effects of an impairment lasting or expected to last fewer than six months can be substantially limiting . . . .” 29 C.F.R. § 1630.2(j)(1)(ix) (emphasis added). ... Courts should view duration as merely “one factor that is relevant in determining whether the impairment substantially limits a major life activity.” Id. ... As a result, the Court concludes that, as pleaded here, Plaintiff’s impairment, although temporary, is alleged to have been sufficiently severe to “substantially limit” the operation of his musculoskeletal function under the expansive definition of that term under the 2008 Amendments to the ADA. E.g., 29 C.F.R. 1630.2(j)(1) (“‘Substantially limits’ is not meant to be a demanding standard.”). ... The Court thus concludes that Plaintiff may maintain his claim for “actual disability” under the ADA at this stage of the litigation.

Section 1630.2(j)(1)(ii) defines a substantially limiting impairment by comparing an individual's ability to perform a major life activity with that of most people in the general population.

Kudlinski v. Universal Underwriters Group · filed 2019-11-13(j)(1)(ii)

An impairment is substantially limiting if it “substantially limits the ability of an individual to perform a major life activity as compared to most people in the general population.” ... This evidence creates a genuine issue of material fact whether plaintiff’s omental infarction substantially limited a major life activity, including working, standing and performing manual tasks. Accordingly, the evidence of plaintiff’s omental infarction is sufficient to defeat defendant’s summary judgment motion on this issue.